DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 23 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0247689 (hereinafter “Chabrecek”).Regarding claims 1, 3 and 4 Chabrecek teaches a flexible substrate (backing film) for an optoelectronic device, such as an OLED (foldable display layer configured for displaying information to a user) (foldable electronic display device comprising the foldable display layer, where the backing film is coupled to the foldable display layer and arranged substantially parallel to a display surface of the foldable display layer) (abstract; and paragraphs [0021] and [0022]). Chabrecek teaches the substrate (backing film) is woven and comprises a plurality of metal threads (fibers) 12 arranged parallel to each other in a first direction, and a coating (film) 14 that mechanically couples the plurality of metal threads (fibers) 12 to each other (Figure 1; and paragraphs [0017], [0028] and [0029]), which also corresponds to the film mechanically couples the plurality of metal fibers to the OLED (foldable display layer). Chabrecek teaches the coating (film) 14 comprises a polymer material, such as PI (polyimide) (abstract and paragraph [0015]). Chabrecek does not explicitly teach the substrate (backing film) is configured to have a stiffness in a first direction parallel to a bending axis of a plane of the foldable display layer that is at least ten times higher than a stiffness of the backing film in a second direction perpendicular to the bending axis in the plane of the foldable display layer. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine appropriate stiffnesses in each of the direction parallel to the bending axis of a plane of the flexible substrate and the direction perpendicular to the bending axis in the plane of the foldable display layer to yield a flexible substrate for an optoelectronic device which is capable of flexibility and folding along its bending axis, while maintaining sufficient stiffness in a transverse direction thereof. Regarding the modulus of elasticity of the backing film, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the film has a modulus of elasticity that is less than 3% of a modulus of elasticity of a material of the plurality of metal fibers, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the Chabrecek reference teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.Regarding claim 8 In addition, Chabrecek teaches the plurality of metal threads (fibers) 12 are encapsulated by a combination of the coating 14, comprising a transparent polymer, and the underlying active layer 18, comprising PEDOT (polymer material) (paragraphs [0029] and [0032]), which corresponds to the backing film includes a polymer material that encapsulates the plurality of metal fibers.Regarding claim 12 In addition, Chabrecek teaches the metal fibers 12 have a diameter of 30-35 µm (paragraph [0028]), which falls within the claimed range. Chabrecek also teaches the conductivity of the fabric (or the surface resistance) can be suitably established by means of the geometry, with which such a metallic or metallized thread is woven together with non-conducting threads. The framework of suitable forms of embodiment of the invention thereby includes the provision of conducting threads of this kind in the form of a 1:1 interlacing, or preferably 1:2, 1:3, or higher, as a supplement or alternative to the selection of the direction (warp, fill), in which a metallic or metallized fiber should actually be woven, so as to undertake the adjustment of the conductivity (also envisaged in particular is weaving in both the warp and fill directions) (paragraph [0017]). Chabrecek does not explicitly teach the plurality of metal fibers 12 are spaced apart from each other by, on average, less than five times a diameter of individual fibers of the plurality of metal fibers. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate spacing of adjacent metal fibers 12 in the woven fabric to adjust the conductivity of the fabric to a desired level.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chabrecek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Number 9,313,884 (hereinafter “Sonderegger”).Regarding claim 2 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Chabrecek teaches for purposes of electrical conductivity, suitable metals for the metal fibers 12, including Ti, Ag, Al, Cu, Au, Pa, Pt, Ni, W, Mo, Nb, Ba, Sn, Zr or similar (paragraph [0017]). Chabrecek does not explicitly teach the metal fibers 12 includes a stainless steel material. Sonderegger teaches an electrode substate for an optoelectronic device having a woven fabric that includes electrically conductive as well as non-conductive and transparent fibers (abstract and column 3, lines 51-57). Sonderegger teaches materials that may be used for the electrically conductive fibers include SS (stainless steel) (column 3, lines 35-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the metal fibers 12 of Chabrecek from the stainless steel of Sonderegger motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of electrically conductive metal fibers for use in a woven electrode substrate for an optoelectronic device.
Claims 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chabrecek as applied to either claim 1 or 8 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0294495 (hereinafter “Shyu”).Regarding claim 5 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Chabrecek does not explicitly teach a neutral plane of the foldable electronic display device coincides with a plane within the foldable display layer. Shyu teaches an electronic device having a flexible portion that allows the device to be folded (abstract). Shyu teaches to prevent bending-induced stress, which may result in damage, a neutral stress plane (neutral plane) should be aligned with components which are susceptible to damage by such a stress (paragraph [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the neutral stress plane (neutral plane), as taught by Shyu, to be located, or coinciding with a plane, within the OLED (foldable display layer) of Chabrecek to protect the OLED (foldable display layer) from bending-induced stress.Regarding claim 9 The limitations for claim 8 have been set forth above. In addition, Chabrecek teaches the coating (film) 14 comprises a polymer material which imparts electrical insulation for the electrically conducting fibers (paragraph [0011]). Chabrecek does not explicitly teach the polymer material is broken into a plurality of distinct sections, each section encapsulating a metal fiber of the plurality of metal fibers. Shyu teaches an electronic device having a flexible portion that allows the device to be folded (abstract). Shyu teaches to form areas or regions of enhanced flexibility, portions of the polymers may be removed using etching equipment, cutting equipment, machining equipment, laser-processing equipment, or other material removal tools (paragraph [0042]), which corresponds to the polymer material is broken into a plurality of distinct sections. Shyu also teaches the enhanced flexibility regions may be formed in the substrate layer (paragraph [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate of Chabrecek with the regions of enhanced flexibility of Shyu to improve the flexibility of the substrate. The combination of Chabrecek and Shyu does not explicitly teach the polymer material which is not removed (polymer material broken into a plurality of distinct sections) encapsulates a metal fiber of the plurality of metal fibers. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to not provide the polymer removal process to the polymer material (each section of the polymer material), as disclosed by Shyu, which encapsulates the metal fiber to ensure the electrical insulating effect is maintained, which is desired by Chabrecek.Regarding claim 10 The limitations for claim 8 have been set forth above. In addition, Chabrecek teaches the substrate (backing film) includes a woven mesh material having warp metal fibers 12, and non-metallic (non-conducting) fibers (shute fibers) 10 (paragraphs [0017] and [0028] – [0030]). Chabrecek teaches the coating (film) 14 comprises a polymer material which imparts electrical insulation for the electrically conducting fibers (paragraph [0011]). Chabrecek does not explicitly teach the polymer material includes voids corresponding to locations of shute fibers of a woven mesh material, which has been removed from the mesh material. Shyu teaches an electronic device having a flexible portion that allows the device to be folded (abstract). Shyu teaches to form areas or regions of enhanced flexibility, portions of the polymers may be removed using etching equipment, cutting equipment, machining equipment, laser-processing equipment, or other material removal tools (paragraph [0042]), which corresponds to the polymer material includes voids. Shyu also teaches the enhanced flexibility regions may be formed in the substrate layer (paragraph [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate of Chabrecek with the regions of enhanced flexibility of Shyu to improve the flexibility of the substrate. The combination of Chabrecek and Shyu does not explicitly teach the voids in the polymer material are present in locations corresponding to shute fibers of the woven mesh material. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the polymer removal process of the polymer material, as disclosed by Shyu, in locations of the non-metallic (non-conducting) fibers (shute fibers) 10 to ensure the electrical insulating effect provided by the coating 14 to the electrically conductive fibers 12 is maintained, which is desired by Chabrecek.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chabrecek as applied to claim 1 above, as further evidenced by an article titled “Mechanical Properties of Polyamide” by Rohan (hereinafter “Rohan), and as further evidenced by an article titled “Elastic Properties and Young Modulus for some Materials” by TheEngineeringToolBox.com (hereinafter “ETB”).Regarding claim 6 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Chabrecek teaches the substrate (backing film) includes a woven mesh material having warp metal fibers 12, such as aluminum, and non-metallic (non-conducting) fibers (shute fibers) 10, such as transparent PA (polyamide) between the warp fibers 12 (paragraphs [0017] and [0028] – [0030] and Figure 1). The modulus of elasticity of aluminum is 69 GPa, as evidenced by ETB (page 1). The modulus of elasticity of polyamide ranges from 1.5 to 3.5 GPa, as evidenced by Rohan (page 2, under the “Tensile Strength and Elastic Modulus of Polyamide” heading). These two moduli of elasticity corresponds to the polyamide (shute) fibers having a modulus of elasticity that is ranges from 2.2% (1.5 GPa/69 GPa*100%) to 5.1% (3.5 GPa/69 GPa*100%) of a modulus of elasticity of the aluminum (warp) fibers, which overlaps the claimed range.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chabrecek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sonderegger, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0253234 (hereinafter “Yang”).Regarding claims 6 and 7 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Chabrecek teaches the substrate (backing film) includes a woven mesh material having warp metal fibers 12, such as aluminum, and non-metallic (non-conducting) fibers (shute fibers) 10, such as transparent PA (polyamide) between the warp fibers 12 (paragraphs [0017] and [0028] – [0030] and Figure 1). Chabrecek teaches the present invention is not limited by the examples or described formulations or material groups from which the selection may be made, rather, it lies within the framework of suitable dimensioning, dependent on a required application objective, to combine a suitable material strength, flexibility and load capacity of the substrate material with the desired electrical conductivity properties (paragraph [0036]). Chabrecek does not explicitly teach the non-metallic (non-conducting) fibers (shute fibers) 10 include spandex or elastane. Sonderegger teaches an electrode substate for an optoelectronic device having a woven fabric that includes electrically conductive as well as non-conductive and transparent fibers (abstract and column 3, lines 51-57). Sonderegger teaches by appropriate selection and configuration of the non-conductive fibers (also in the fabric structure and the fabric weave, relative to the non-conducting fibers), the desired mechanical properties for the respective application (e.g., flexibility) may be adjusted and combined with the desired electrical and optical properties (column 2, lines 9-20). Yang teaches to enhance the flexibility of a fabric, flexible materials such as spandex, synthetic elastic fiber (lycra) (elastane), etc. are known to be added (paragraph [0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the non-metallic (non-conducting) fibers (shute fibers) 10 of Chabrecek with the flexible materials from the combination of Sonderegger and Yang to improve the flexibility of the substrate dependent on a required application objective, as desired by Chabrecek. Regarding the modulus of elasticity of the backing film, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose the shute fibers have a modulus of elasticity that is less than 3% of a modulus of elasticity of the warp fibers, the claimed properties are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the combination of Chabrecek, Sonderegger and Yang teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chabrecek and Shyu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sonderegger.Regarding claim 11 The limitations for claim 10 have been set forth above. In addition, Chabrecek teaches embodiments where an electrically conducting layer is achieved on both sides of the fabric (paragraph [0027]). Chabrecek teaches the use of aluminum metal thread for the metal fiber 12 (paragraph [0028]), and for purposes of electrical conductivity, suitable metals for the metal fibers 12, include Ti, Ag, Al, Cu, Au, Pa, Pt, Ni, W, Mo, Nb, Ba, Sn, Zr or similar (paragraph [0017]). Chabrecek does not explicitly teach the metal fibers includes stainless steel. Sonderegger teaches an electrode substate for an optoelectronic device having a woven fabric that includes electrically conductive as well as non-conductive and transparent fibers (abstract and column 3, lines 51-57). Sonderegger teaches materials that may be used for the electrically conductive fibers include SS (stainless steel) (column 3, lines 35-42). Chabrecek and Sonderegger are analogous inventions in the field of electrically conductive metal fibers for use in a woven electrode substrate for an optoelectronic device. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fibers (shute fibers) 10 of Chabrecek with the stainless steel fibers of Sonderegger to impart electrically conductive properties on both sides of the fabric, as desired by the aforementioned embodiment disclosed by Chabrecek. The combination of Chabrecek and Sonderegger corresponds to warp fibers including stainless steel and shute fibers including aluminum.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783